So For An RDS Handgun, Wouldn't You Actually Want It Forward Of The Ejection Port?

[SteyrAUG]

Thinking about what would be my first RDS handgun and realized on a carbine it sits between the irons, why shouldn't a handgun RDS so the same? Also seems like a great place to install a picatinny rail as some others have suggested as the better mounting solution.

Seems like it would also give the shooter faster acquisition in a more forward position vs. rear of the slide. The only thing it really complicates is holsters.

[georgeib]

In one sense, I think the answer to your question is a qualified yes. However, there are other practical considerations that necessitate the current location of pistol RDS. Specifically the amount of available material on a slide, and height over bore for BUIS. As it is, placing the RDS behind the ejection port doesn't really have a deleterious effect on ejection in the vast majority of cases, so there is no practical reason to try and tackle the issues that would present themselves in trying to move the sight forward.

EDIT: Looks like I need to read more thoroughly before responding. As @Renegade04 responded below, yes the RDS does normally sit between the irons. For some reason, when I first read your post, I was thinking that you were suggesting mounting the RDS forward of the ejection port. Unless I read it as you were editing it, or something?

[Renegade04]

Thinking about what would be my first RDS handgun and realized on a carbine it sits between the irons, why shouldn't a handgun RDS so the same? Also seems like a great place to install a picatinny rail as some others have suggested as the better mounting solution.

Seems like it would also give the shooter faster acquisition in a more forward position vs. rear of the slide. The only thing it really complicates is holsters.

On most handguns with a RDO, the optic does sit between the sights. There is a handful of people who have had their Glock slides milled to place the RDO at the ear and the rear sight in front of it. Personally, I am not a fan of that configuration. All of my RDO equipped pistols are set up in the traditional way. To me and many others, the rearward position in front of the rear sight is best. Here are a few examples.

[diving dave]

It really doesn't matter in use. 2 of my M&P's were milled with rear sight forward. I like it as I can rack the slide one handed using the rear sight, not the optic. It also allows for 100% of the window use in awkward shooting positions, although that doesn't happen often.

[Ron3]

I think holstering would be the #1 issue.

I have an RDS on the front of a VZ-61. Which reminds me; I need to attach a lanyard / sling to that gun.

[Inkslinger]

While a picatinny mounting solution would have some merits, I don’t think moving the sight 2 inches forward would provide any advantage. You’re already holding a handgun at arm’s length unlike a rifle that puts the sighting system closer to your eye.

[Bluto]

I think holstering is the most obvious reason it’s not so common. I have one of these just for fun. You can mount an rds anywhere.


https://www.keltecweapons.com/firearm/pistols/cp33/

[gaijin]

While a picatinny mounting solution would have some merits, I don’t think moving the sight 2 inches forward would provide any advantage. You’re already holding a handgun at arm’s length unlike a rifle that puts the sighting system closer to your eye.

This.
And optic in front of EP would make cleaning the INSIDE of “single pane”, non “enclosed Emitter” RDs next to impossible.
The propellant gasses/carbon fouling would be a nightmare to clean from the inside of an RMR/507cX2/etc.

[MegademiC]

Thinking about what would be my first RDS handgun and realized on a carbine it sits between the irons, why shouldn't a handgun RDS so the same? Also seems like a great place to install a picatinny rail as some others have suggested as the better mounting solution.

Seems like it would also give the shooter faster acquisition in a more forward position vs. rear of the slide. The only thing it really complicates is holsters.

They are already between the irons (except the wierd people who put the rear in front, but thats not standard).

Also, being further forward would make it more difficult to see the dot in theory - its such a small movement i dont think there would be a practical difference.

[Defaultmp3]

Seems like it would also give the shooter faster acquisition in a more forward position vs. rear of the slide. The only thing it really complicates is holsters.

Why would a more forward position give a shooter faster acquisition? The opposite is true for rifles; the closer the optic is to your eye, the bigger FOV you have through the optic, and so the sooner you will see the reticle.

The argument for rears in front of the RDS on handguns is that you get a slightly less clutter view through the optic, along with the irons possibly providing slight protection for the front lens. Some slide milling for certain slide/optic combos also dictates this arrangement, such as trying to direct mill an ACRO for a non-MOS Glock, due to the factory rear sight dovetail being too far forward to fit an ACRO between the dovetail and the ejection port.